Given that most of us use Google several times a day and may also use it to send e-mail, to plan our calendar, and to make phone calls, questions commonly arise about how all of that data is used. Google has said that it needs access to such large amounts of data as a way to “make it useful” and to sell personalized ads against it—and to profit substantially in the process.

However, a March 2012 study from the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that two-thirds of Americans view a personalized search as a “bad thing,” with 73 percent of those surveyed saying that they were “not OK” with personalized searches on privacy grounds. Another recent poll of California voters recently reached similar results, as “78 percent of voters—including 71 percent of voters age 18-29—said the collection of personal information online is an invasion of privacy.”

Short of masking your online trail with a VPN or going through Tor all the time, it’s hard to avoid the watchful eye of Sergey and Larry. What's a privacy-conscious Web searcher to do? For those who worry about such issues, privacy-minded search alternatives in various stages of development do exist—even if they're only taking the tiniest bite out of Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo’s search engine market share.

“Not really knowing about [what the other guys do], we independently made the decision that we wanted to go down this route of not storing this data,” explained Gabriel Weinberg, the site’s founder, in an interview with Ars this month.

“Search engines have a history of getting subpoenas, and Google has been more and more open to the requests that they were responding to," he said. "It seemed inevitable that search engines would get requests from law enforcement—I don’t like that idea of handing over data.”

“That makes it easier for people on Tor to hit our search engine and it means that we don’t store stuff and you can ensure that it exits through us. You can be end-to-end anonymous on Tor,” Weinberg added.

How does a site that makes a point of not tracking its users make money? Through contextualized search ads that generate “sponsored links.” Not that Google's money machine should start to worry yet; Weinberg says that his for-profit company earned around $115,000 in revenue in 2011—with three employees and a handful of other contractors.

But Weinberg says he's patient. He believes that users will ultimately come to DuckDuckGo because it’s a “better search experience,” not just because of privacy.

“The problem is that [people] have never had a choice,” he said. “They don’t perceive that they have a choice. If you say: yes, you can go to this privacy search engine, they feel that they’re sacrificing something for that. But I don’t want to hamper my search experience. We’ve been trying to offer high privacy and a comparable or better search experience [than Google].”

Weinberg’s not the only one saying it. Search Engine Land wrote last month that in terms of user experience and interface, DuckDuckGo “has begun to beat Google at its own game.”

Beyond search watchers, privacy watchers have also taken notice. Nicole Ozer, the technology and civil liberties policy director at the Northern California office of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in San Francisco, told Ars that she’s been watching DuckDuckGo for some time.

“Our position is that [the public] shouldn't have to choose between using new technology and keeping control of our personal information,” she said.

Privacy-conscious Internet users may wonder about the verifiability of DuckDuckGo's claims. The short answer is that there isn’t any good way to know if DuckDuckGo (or any other company) does what it says, short of the company releasing its source code. Weinberg has not submitted DuckDuckGo to an outside security audit, as he argues it would not add much in terms of convincing skeptics, but he notes in an online post that a company breaching its own privacy policy can lead to prosecution or sanctions from the Federal Trade Commission.

78 Reader Comments

I think you should also have mentioned that startpage.com is a google-only version of ixquick. If you want google without tracking / personalized search then startpage.com works great. In my experience google still offers better search results than ixquick or duckduckgo (though that's just based on my impression from using them a bit), therefore I use startpage.

Still don't really understand the hysteria over privacy here. I could potentially see it being an issue if you live in a country where prosecution regularly happens for just spouting off opinions, but in countries where freedom of speech is largely protected I don't really understand the paranoia.

That's just me though. I just remember not to long ago these type of people were disregarded as tinfoil wearing alarmists. Not privacy-conscious. Not trying to seem like i'm trolling. I guess I just don't understand?

Someone give me legitimate scenarios where something like this is helpful. Not just dystopian theoreticals.

If at least two thirds of people actually think personalized search is "bad", then Google wouldn't be processing billions of requests per day. Some of that is surely just a lack of awareness of alternatives, but more likely people just don't care nearly as much as they want pollsters to think they do. I just can't imagine that over half the US population turns off the personalized search option.

AdamM, A few places privacy might be warranted, freedom of speech or no. . . and this is assuming totally legal uses of the internet.

You search for and watch porn. Any porn at all will do, but the crazier your *legal* fetishes are, the worse it is if they're exposed. Or maybe it wasn't you, maybe it was your spouse, child, bastard friend who likes to "prank" you when you don't lock your PC. Yeah, yeah, Google's not likely to go running to your mom to expose you, but suppose now you want to. . . Run for office Teach Apply for a sensitive job - CIA/FBI/Probably even the Police

Or maybe you said something stupid on the internet and it was tied to your name. Or your friends took some pictures of you at a party doing silly drunken things there and your friends captured some pictures of you and tagged you on Facebook. (There are a few mostly stalled attempts at a Facebook with something resembling real privacy controls. . . though if it's on the internet, a copy and paste gets it out of these "private" social media sites.)

Maybe you needed to do a bit of research on communism, or terrorism. What books, articles, websites, or chat rooms are likely to get you on the "No Fly List?" Taken out of context - or even in context given prejudice against the communist or any sort of a socialist party, how could these things be used against you in the following circumstances: In a courtroom Job interview Interrogation trying to re-enter the country in one of the "constitution free zones". (U.S. citizen here.)

There are plenty of legal things we all do that we probably don't want everybody to know about. Heck, maybe you're just incontinent and you don't want targeted adds popping up every time you open a browser in the privacy of your own home, nevertheless in front of somebody.

Edit: The saying something stupid would have to be under a pseudonym to the public, but with your actual data somewhere behind it that some arm of "the man" could get at. If it's publicly tied to your name from the get go, it's not private.

Still don't really understand the hysteria over privacy here. I could potentially see it being an issue if you live in a country where prosecution regularly happens for just spouting off opinions, but in countries where freedom of speech is largely protected I don't really understand the paranoia.

That's just me though. I just remember not to long ago these type of people were disregarded as tinfoil wearing alarmists. Not privacy-conscious. Not trying to seem like i'm trolling. I guess I just don't understand?

Someone give me legitimate scenarios where something like this is helpful. Not just dystopian theoreticals.

I thought this was a pretty good list of things that can go wrong for you when data is tracked. Initial focus is on Facebook but there are examples of how data mining combined with behavioral indicators (including your searches) could be used to draw conclusions that would be harmful to you:

Privacy is important but I think what this story is really highlighting is a lack of understanding by the general public in how information is collected and utilized. If two thirds of the sample size are uncomfortable with personalized web searches, I would hate to see what they think about all of the other "free" services use of their private information.

What people need to understand is privacy is not free. You will pay for it one way or another as there is no free lunch.

AdamM, A few places privacy might be warranted, freedom of speech or no. . . and this is assuming totally legal uses of the internet.

You search for and watch porn. Any porn at all will do, but the crazier your *legal* fetishes are, the worse it is if they're exposed. Or maybe it wasn't you, maybe it was your spouse, child, bastard friend who likes to "prank" you when you don't lock your PC. Yeah, yeah, Google's not likely to go running to your mom to expose you, but suppose now you want to. . . Run for office Teach Apply for a sensitive job - CIA/FBI/Probably even the Police

Or maybe you said something stupid on the internet and it was tied to your name. Or your friends took some pictures of you at a party doing silly drunken things there and your friends captured some pictures of you and tagged you on Facebook. (There are a few mostly stalled attempts at a Facebook with something resembling real privacy controls. . . though if it's on the internet, a copy and paste gets it out of these "private" social media sites.)

Maybe you needed to do a bit of research on communism, or terrorism. What books, articles, websites, or chat rooms are likely to get you on the "No Fly List?" Taken out of context - or even in context given prejudice against the communist or any sort of a socialist party, how could these things be used against you in the following circumstances: In a courtroom Job interview Interrogation trying to re-enter the country in one of the "constitution free zones". (U.S. citizen here.)

There are plenty of legal things we all do that we probably don't want everybody to know about. Heck, maybe you're just incontinent and you don't want targeted adds popping up every time you open a browser in the privacy of your own home, nevertheless in front of somebody.

Edit: The saying something stupid would have to be under a pseudonym to the public, but with your actual data somewhere behind it that some arm of "the man" could get at. If it's publicly tied to your name from the get go, it's not private.

jdale wrote:

AdamM wrote:

Still don't really understand the hysteria over privacy here. I could potentially see it being an issue if you live in a country where prosecution regularly happens for just spouting off opinions, but in countries where freedom of speech is largely protected I don't really understand the paranoia.

That's just me though. I just remember not to long ago these type of people were disregarded as tinfoil wearing alarmists. Not privacy-conscious. Not trying to seem like i'm trolling. I guess I just don't understand?

Someone give me legitimate scenarios where something like this is helpful. Not just dystopian theoreticals.

I thought this was a pretty good list of things that can go wrong for you when data is tracked. Initial focus is on Facebook but there are examples of how data mining combined with behavioral indicators (including your searches) could be used to draw conclusions that would be harmful to you:

I think you should also have mentioned that startpage.com is a google-only version of ixquick. If you want google without tracking / personalized search then startpage.com works great. In my experience google still offers better search results than ixquick or duckduckgo (though that's just based on my impression from using them a bit), therefore I use startpage.

I've tried startpage but I find it still differs from Google results despite that it supposedly scrapes off of them. Give it a try. Search for the same terms on both side-by-side and you might find the results differ.

I've been using DDG myself for the past while and it has its nice features but I feel it's a compromise. The main objective of a search engine is to return the best results and Google just does it much better.

Still don't really understand the hysteria over privacy here. I could potentially see it being an issue if you live in a country where prosecution regularly happens for just spouting off opinions, but in countries where freedom of speech is largely protected I don't really understand the paranoia.

That's just me though. I just remember not to long ago these type of people were disregarded as tinfoil wearing alarmists. Not privacy-conscious. Not trying to seem like i'm trolling. I guess I just don't understand?

Someone give me legitimate scenarios where something like this is helpful. Not just dystopian theoreticals.

You've already received a couple of very good responses, and I don't want to come across as beating a dead horse, but I figured I would add my two cents. You've probably heard the statement "Well, if you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide," or something along those lines. For me, and probably others, that is enough to be concerned about privacy.

I may not be doing anything illegal, or even morally objectionable, but I am under no obligation to share*. What I do in a place where I have a reasonable expectation of privacy (in my home, with my own computer, on my own encrypted, locked down wifi signal) is my business. If I choose to share that information, so be it, that's on me. Google doesn't decide that.

I've actually been using DDG exclusively for several months now, at home and at work, and before that I used Scroogle. DDG has a ways to go before its results are up to par with Google's, but they are good enough, and as DDG grows, they will get better. Hopefully, this personal opinion will give you further insight.

* Assuming, of course, that I haven't been presented with a warrant or a subpoena...

I think you should also have mentioned that startpage.com is a google-only version of ixquick. If you want google without tracking / personalized search then startpage.com works great. In my experience google still offers better search results than ixquick or duckduckgo (though that's just based on my impression from using them a bit), therefore I use startpage.

I've tried startpage but I find it still differs from Google results despite that it supposedly scrapes off of them. Give it a try. Search for the same terms on both side-by-side and you might find the results differ.

I've been using DDG myself for the past while and it has its nice features but I feel it's a compromise. The main objective of a search engine is to return the best results and Google just does it much better.

I assume the difference would be in the lack of personalized results, perhaps?

I've been using DuckDuckGo for about 4 months. I can't say whether the results are better than with google or not. I do know that I find what I want without wading through pages of results. That's good enough for me.

And I consider not feeding Big Data, whether it be with my personal data or anything else, a major plus.

When Techdirt's article about SOPA was 'redacted' from Googles listing via a DMCA takedown ( http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201202 ... tice.shtml) notice , the article still showed up *fine* on a DuckDuckGo search. I like that their search results were... un-tampered with.

I think you should also have mentioned that startpage.com is a google-only version of ixquick. If you want google without tracking / personalized search then startpage.com works great. In my experience google still offers better search results than ixquick or duckduckgo (though that's just based on my impression from using them a bit), therefore I use startpage.

I've tried startpage but I find it still differs from Google results despite that it supposedly scrapes off of them. Give it a try. Search for the same terms on both side-by-side and you might find the results differ.

I've been using DDG myself for the past while and it has its nice features but I feel it's a compromise. The main objective of a search engine is to return the best results and Google just does it much better.

I assume the difference would be in the lack of personalized results, perhaps?

Or, as DDG likes to point out, bubbling. Google does a lot to figure out who you are - they use a lot more than just cookies, so you can still be bubbled based on past searches and browsing history.

When I first heard about Qualys SSL Labs Server Test I threw in DDG and was surprised to see them score a C. According to the "test" DDG had low scores in key exchange and cypher strength and was susceptible to the SSL BEAST attack. About a week later I put DDG back in and it scored an A (88), which is higher than Google's A (85) mostly because of a higher key exchange score (90 vs. 80). So, either DDG is active in improving security or the test has some issues.

Thanks for the article. I'm switching to DDG immediately. May not mean much, but it's one less thing tracking me. As more people value online privacy, more things will allow it, and find different ways to monetize.

Short of masking your online trail with a VPN or going through Tor all the time, it’s hard to avoid the watchful eye of Sergey and Larry.

Hiding your real IP address does nothing to prevent google from building a profile on you, especially if you are allowing cookies or other forms of local storage beyond the session or use chrome which sends a unique id generated at install or are logged into google. Even then, they might be able to track you through browser fingerprinting.

IMO people should rely on limiting identifying data sent by their browsers to insure they are not tracked instead of taking companies' word that they won't do it

I think you should also have mentioned that startpage.com is a google-only version of ixquick. If you want google without tracking / personalized search then startpage.com works great. In my experience google still offers better search results than ixquick or duckduckgo (though that's just based on my impression from using them a bit), therefore I use startpage.

I've tried startpage but I find it still differs from Google results despite that it supposedly scrapes off of them. Give it a try. Search for the same terms on both side-by-side and you might find the results differ.

I've been using DDG myself for the past while and it has its nice features but I feel it's a compromise. The main objective of a search engine is to return the best results and Google just does it much better.

I assume the difference would be in the lack of personalized results, perhaps?

I don't think so. I can search for a friends name, for example, and Google will show links to their facebook and other social networking sites. I do the same on startpage and it only pulls up one of those results and a bunch of irrelevant ones.

I've tested it at work, for instance, and with the same results. I don't stay logged into any google accounts either btw. Oh well. Either way, startpage is a good alternative. Just saying there's definitely a difference though.

It's not hysteria (at least not for me). I just don't want some database somewhere to know more about me than anyone else, even my own girlfriend doesn't know me that well.

These databases do not provide me with anything good, the world was perfectly fine when they didn't exist, and if the data ever does get into the wrong hands, bad stuff will happen.

Is that really too much to ask for?

The world was "just fine" without Google. Sure, it didn't explode or anything. But Google has done a lot to improve our access to information.

"If the data ever does get into the wrong hands, bad stuff will happen" - that statement is vague and almost qualifies as tautology. There are certain legally enforced guarantees and policies for dealing with data to ensure this does not happen.

There's some basic diligence and common sense involved in using the internet. If you want to do something in private, set something up. Use incognito, or temporarily go through a VPN. You can turn opt out of ad preferences in Google itself or go to the ad choices coalition; you can still use Google's search engine. Don't flippantly attach your name to everything you say on the public internet if you don't want it to be in the public eye.

Google indexes the world's information. If you casually splay your information around the web, don't get all catty when Google picks it up.

Given that the Seeks Project doesn’t log its traffic, developers don't know for certain how many people are using the service so far.

If they did want to know how many people were using their service, this is a pretty easy technical problem to fix, no? Take the IP address of each user, throw an md5 hash on it (so that they aren't logging addresses, just strings of non-personally identifiable data), and toss it in a database. Am I missing something here?

I've been using DuckDuckGo for several months now, and the results are noticeably better than Google. I occasionally search either Google or Bing for comparison, but DDG is my default choice now. I've had numerous instances where an item I was looking for came up in the first few found items, whereas it didn't appear in Google at all (or at least in the first 4 pages, after which I gave up looking).

I think you should also have mentioned that startpage.com is a google-only version of ixquick. If you want google without tracking / personalized search then startpage.com works great. In my experience google still offers better search results than ixquick or duckduckgo (though that's just based on my impression from using them a bit), therefore I use startpage.

I've tried startpage but I find it still differs from Google results despite that it supposedly scrapes off of them. Give it a try. Search for the same terms on both side-by-side and you might find the results differ.

I've been using DDG myself for the past while and it has its nice features but I feel it's a compromise. The main objective of a search engine is to return the best results and Google just does it much better.

I assume the difference would be in the lack of personalized results, perhaps?

I don't think so. I can search for a friends name, for example, and Google will show links to their facebook and other social networking sites. I do the same on startpage and it only pulls up one of those results and a bunch of irrelevant ones.

I've tested it at work, for instance, and with the same results. I don't stay logged into any google accounts either btw. Oh well. Either way, startpage is a good alternative. Just saying there's definitely a difference though.

Does google actually publish how exactly they do all their targeting? They may either be recognizing you specifically, or it could be a geographical thing (or some other profiling). The link Sogarth posted (http://dontbubble.us/) is pretty nice. Remember that when searching through startpage google doesn't even know what continent you're on, so it's not too surprising that there are differences. I'm inclined to believe they are more for the good than not. I absolutely hate the idea of my search provider attempting to present me the results I'll like, as opposed to results representing a broad selection / the truth.

Given that the Seeks Project doesn’t log its traffic, developers don't know for certain how many people are using the service so far.

If they did want to know how many people were using their service, this is a pretty easy technical problem to fix, no? Take the IP address of each user, throw an md5 hash on it (so that they aren't logging addresses, just strings of non-personally identifiable data), and toss it in a database. Am I missing something here?

That would be easily brute-forced, since there are only about 2^32 possible IP addresses. Even when we switch to IPv6 the actual address space may be small enough to brute-force. We could salt the IP-address, but the salt would either be stored on the server (obviously bad), or based on some secondary attribute of the connecting machine (but then it would still be possible to check if any particular machine has accessed the site if we know the attribute).

Mind you I am no cryptographer, so if I missed some way to actually do this well then please let me know

I think you should also have mentioned that startpage.com is a google-only version of ixquick. If you want google without tracking / personalized search then startpage.com works great. In my experience google still offers better search results than ixquick or duckduckgo (though that's just based on my impression from using them a bit), therefore I use startpage.

I've tried startpage but I find it still differs from Google results despite that it supposedly scrapes off of them. Give it a try. Search for the same terms on both side-by-side and you might find the results differ.

I've been using DDG myself for the past while and it has its nice features but I feel it's a compromise. The main objective of a search engine is to return the best results and Google just does it much better.

I assume the difference would be in the lack of personalized results, perhaps?

I don't think so. I can search for a friends name, for example, and Google will show links to their facebook and other social networking sites. I do the same on startpage and it only pulls up one of those results and a bunch of irrelevant ones.

I've tested it at work, for instance, and with the same results. I don't stay logged into any google accounts either btw. Oh well. Either way, startpage is a good alternative. Just saying there's definitely a difference though.

Does google actually publish how exactly they do all their targeting? They may either be recognizing you specifically, or it could be a geographical thing (or some other profiling). The link Sogarth posted (http://dontbubble.us/) is pretty nice. Remember that when searching through startpage google doesn't even know what continent you're on, so it's not too surprising that there are differences. I'm inclined to believe they are more for the good than not. I absolutely hate the idea of my search provider attempting to present me the results I'll like, as opposed to results representing a broad selection / the truth.

They explicitly say they used personalisation to increase relevance, not just presenting you what you like. Relevant results have better accuracy to what you really wanted to find.

Lots of my non-techie friends, who don't care about online privacy find personalized searches irritating. Especially when they search for some term on one computer, find one of top results interesting and when they try searching for the same term on different machine, that result is not even on first page.

For them non-personalized search is definitely a feature. It has nothing to do with privacy.

I find personalized searches as a silly excuse for tracking everything I do on Google's domains. They're helpful sometimes, mostly when I try to find something I've visited before, but that's about it. Thanks for reminding me of DDG, I'll definitely try and get more used with it.

When Techdirt's article about SOPA was 'redacted' from Googles listing via a DMCA takedown ( http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201202 ... tice.shtml) notice , the article still showed up *fine* on a DuckDuckGo search. I like that their search results were... un-tampered with.

I don't know about that case BUT it's relevant to the fact that personalized (or localized) search results also lead to a reduced view of the world...

Let's say for years you've been searching stuff that lead to you being classified as an atheist. Some day you're looking for info on climate change... If the search engine made a correlation between religious inclination and views on the subject you'll mainly get results from the side of the argument the search engine believes correspond to the classification of people they put you in.

In the end the profile search engine will have on you will be so specific that you'll only be presented with results that enforce your beliefs not allowing you to evolve or question yourself, like you would when presented to dissonant informations.

Why is it whenever someone speaks about privacy, FBI and other related employees start shouting about legal/illegal uses of the internet? Privacy has nothing to do with legality of action; get that through your heads and perhaps we can start having meaningful discussions about the validity of it.

Anything that limits what data is collected about me, is worth a look at. I have been using DDG for about 9 months now, and while the serach results are not what I expect ...it doesn't mean they are not working correctly. If anything, it points out how 'customized searchs' simply filter the information. I do not want a filter as I have a brain than can filter just fine by myself. Google, Bing, or even Yahoo searches simply present the information they 'think' you want too see....not the actual facts.

So they have around $120,000 in Revenue (not profit) and when you take staff and marketing into consideration are probably making a loss... Shouldnt the headline be "The Search engines that don't make money by not tracking users"?

Don't get me wrong, I'm supportive of their actions (and might give DDG a go tonight), but I see nothing here to suggest they're "Making money".

If you still enjoy Google's search results, ixquick offers www.startpage.com as an alternative. Its private and doesn't track or log ip addresses. It still offers to view results via proxy as well. Finally there are options available if you are a power user to add a string to your browser so that searches done right in the address field will perform a search through startpage.

Why is it whenever someone speaks about privacy, FBI and other related employees start shouting about legal/illegal uses of the internet? Privacy has nothing to do with legality of action; get that through your heads and perhaps we can start having meaningful discussions about the validity of it.

Its scary isn't it. Most people don't realize how closely linked privacy is to liberty. Coupled with efforts to normalize erosion of privacy I'm not thrilled about future prospects.

Still don't really understand the hysteria over privacy here. I could potentially see it being an issue if you live in a country where prosecution regularly happens for just spouting off opinions, but in countries where freedom of speech is largely protected I don't really understand the paranoia.

That's just me though. I just remember not to long ago these type of people were disregarded as tinfoil wearing alarmists. Not privacy-conscious. Not trying to seem like i'm trolling. I guess I just don't understand?

Someone give me legitimate scenarios where something like this is helpful. Not just dystopian theoreticals.

Disclaimer: I guess you could say I'm sort of part of the "tinfoil-hat" crowd (though I don't think I'm quite that bad) and have been using DuckDuckGo instead of Google for almost half a year.

I suppose when it comes down to it, it's not really concern over a particular scenario as much as it is your own comfort level and preference. Just because someone dresses modestly doesn't mean that they feel they have something to hide or are worried about attracting unwanted attention.

Besides, no single company should ever have too much power. Doesn't matter what country you're in - no good will come of it. Google stands to have a kind of power beyond the dreams of even the robber-barons (circa US Steel, et al). How much can you really trust them not to go too far? I'm not saying you should don a tin-hat (in my experience, a really motivated party can find what they want on you despite most precautions anyway), I just think it's unwise to trust them (or any other entity) implicitly.

On a non-security related point: part of "customizing search results" means that, when you google something, you can get different results than people different to you. A popular example is that some people will get things like the NRA as a result when they google "gun control" while others might get various gun-control activist websites. Now, maybe that works just fine for you but, when I search for something, it's generally because I want more information and not just opinions similar to my own.

On the whole, I recommend at least trying DuckDuckGo to give it a shot and do something new. I know people who love it and I know others who don't. Personally, I like the interface, the "goodies" and the other various features. Also, its logo is amusing.

On a completely different note; I'd like to say that, as a Pennsylvanian, I'm really quite proud to have something like DuckDuckGo come from my area. Valley Forge isn't just a place we go to for field trips in history class anymore.

It's not hysteria (at least not for me). I just don't want some database somewhere to know more about me than anyone else, even my own girlfriend doesn't know me that well.

These databases do not provide me with anything good, the world was perfectly fine when they didn't exist, and if the data ever does get into the wrong hands, bad stuff will happen.

Is that really too much to ask for?

The world was "just fine" without Google. Sure, it didn't explode or anything. But Google has done a lot to improve our access to information.

"If the data ever does get into the wrong hands, bad stuff will happen" - that statement is vague and almost qualifies as tautology. There are certain legally enforced guarantees and policies for dealing with data to ensure this does not happen.

Legal processes are slower than prevention. This is why people lock their doors.

Given the casual privacy violations on smartphones, even if you're a perfectly boring individual with nothing interesting in your searches, you're exposing yourself to mischief by being tracked. Look at the damage viruses can do with locally stored data. Yes, I trust Google more than some random PC guy. But how many people live in a house made of glass? That's essentially our online life now. As a group, none of us are at much risk statistically. As individuals, why are you willing to risk a huge disruption to your life for a few seconds convenience? Seat belts anyone?